The unstated axiom here is that thinking describes the world. It's really the other way round.

Plato led philosophers astray and none of
'em ever tumbled to his mistake.

A Treatise of Human Nature:

Being An Attempt to introduce the experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects

by David Hume

Book One: Of the Understanding

SECT. VII.

Conclusion of this Book.

. . . the understanding, when it acts alone, and according to its most general principles, entirely subverts itself, and leaves not the lowest degree of evidence in any proposition, either in philosophy or common life.
. . . We have, therefore, no choice left but betwixt a false reason and none at all.

The intense view of these manifold contradictions and imperfections in human reason has so wrought upon me, and heated my brain, that I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning, and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or likely than another. Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall I return? Whose favor shall I court, and whose anger must I dread? What beings surround me? and on whom have, I any influence, or who have any influence on me? I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the use of every member and faculty.

Most fortunately it happens, that since reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends; and when after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.

If human thinking doesn't describe the world, who's does? You're perilously close to Truth here, Harry.

A warning: don't let your distaste for reason lead you to the next step, that belief in reason is irrational.

I have an idea. Let's ditch reason and sing the praises of sheer, untrammeled, infinite ignorance.

That's the only other option on offer.

Reason is a metaphor. It is a useful metaphor, but don't make the mistake of confusing the model of the world you are using for reality.

Jeff/Jim:

Faith isn't ignorance, it's just not rational, not even faith in Reason. But it's sufficient for us mere mortals. We had a dream that Reason might stand on its own and not depend on Faith. Time to wake up.

OJ, this statement of yours from your conclusion to the correspondence between Adams and Jefferson is quite wrong:

"Though Adams' skepticism is quite obviously right, it is Jefferson's closing lines that are the kicker, for no man will deny that he loves and is loved and that this love is something quite real and independent of the world of mere material. "

Jefferson said no such thing, he said that nothing can be immaterial, or that the immaterial is nothing.

"At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus taught nothing of it. He told us indeed that 'God is spirit,' but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. And the antient fathers generally, if not universally, held it to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter."

I find it incredible that he attributes a belief with the immaterial with atheism.

"At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is."

Theism is all about the immaterial essence of God. Jefferson's description of his materialism is a perfect description of atheism.

"Rejecting all organs of information therefore but my senses, I rid myself of Pyrrhonisms with which an indulgence in speculations hyperphysical and antiphysical so uselessly occupy and disquiet the mind. A single sense may indeed be sometimes deceived, but rarely: and never all our senses together, with the faculty of reasoning. They evidence realities; and there are enough of these for the purposes of life, without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence. "

How is this theism?

"love is something quite real and independent of the world of mere material. " Not God is.

The Universe does not contemplate its own navel, as far as we know.

We contemplate its navel, the Big Bang.

Goedel showed the limitations of reason. It devastated Russell (the communist wacko and matematician) who had worked 20 years or more trying to give mathematics a totally logical base.

After that Russell spent most of his time on politics. Ban the Bomb etc.

Actually reason need not rely on faith.

Reason is useful for the same reason a tire iron is useful. We can do useful work with it. Within its limits it is quite effective.

As reason expand faith narrows. We no longer need God to hold up the universe, we have gravity (whatever that is). Gravity can be measured. Where measurements are made faith receedes.

When we get a better understanding of the brain faith is going to take a really big hit.

In any case faith has its uses even if it is an artifact of brain chemistry. It helps us act when facts are in limited supply. Often those actions will provide more information. So faith may be adaptive rather than evidence of a hidden reality.

BTW I'm a believer. But my faith is rather narrow and all encompassing at the same time. I believe in a prime cause. About miracles I have doubts.

BTW belief in reason is as rational as belief in electrons. Or belief in the sun center model of the solar system.

They are rational beliefs because they have use. As does reason.

To ask for a faith based political/economic system that honors faith above reason will lead to a descent into lawlessness. Because one faith is as good as another or else they will have to contend for supremacy with force the arbiter not reason.

I know religious conservatives like to flirt with this idea but isn't it just as limiting as the Wiccan's belief in unreason? Oh, no. Of course not. The Christians are right and the Wiccans are wrong. Want to fight about it?

For western rational man reason with all its limitations must be the first resort. Without reason civilization is impossible. Because without reason there is no common belief. Mormons and Catholics? And supposedly they are on the same side. Although many Mormons and Catholics might disagree.

Reason holds America together. If we give it up for mere faith we will crumble as a nation. Reason is the common culture in a way no religion in America can be.

What tire iron?

M:

Reason isn't a first resort, it's dependent on faith, as you yourself are arguing--we can't prove it, it just works.

Reason isn't dependent on faith but on repeatability.

Could break down any time, but you have to cover your bets.

Orrin's objection, such as it is, to reason is that it does not allow us to know everything, else we would be gods.

True enough. But because we do not know everything does not mean we would be better off to know nothing.

No, the objection is that it does not allow us to "know" anything, but rationalists must pretend that it does and that this knowing is superior to faith, when in fact they're identical.

They are not identical by test.

I know, to a degree of reliability, whether I can safely step off a cliff or not. No amount of faith will improve my chances if I go ahead and put it to a test.

We know many, many things to a degree where uncertainty is insignificant.

This is where your ignorance of physics gets you in trouble.

Earlier you were carrying on about Heisenberg, but H. did not say everything is uncertain.

Most characters of particles are known with great certaintly and absolute precision: spin, charge, momentum and angular momentum, for example.

Mass is known to a high degree of precision.

Even the two characters that H. applied his principle to, position and velocity, are only relatively uncertain.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that position can be known to an arbitrarily precise limit, at the expense of not knowing the velocity; and the velocity can be known to an arbitrarily precise limit, at the expense of not knowing the position.

There is 0 uncertainty, however, whether a particle has position and velocity. They all do.

Harry:

No you don't because you neither "know" there's a you or a cliff. You accept both on faith. Faith is sufficient of itself.

Faith adds zero reliability to whatever it is you think.

Tests add some reliability. How much?

Who cares? Mateialists are not concerned about certainty. Everything is more or less contingent.

You demand certainty and establish it by fiat. But you're actually worse off then me. If you're wrong, you'll never find out. If I'm wrong, I might find out.

There is no reliability, just faith. But faith is enough.